Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–545 of 545 posts

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#541

Post by runako »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #511
runako wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> paired via Starlink What advantage does Starlink provide here? Isn't it a higher-latency, slower connection than most people have access to at home?

Their new goal is just 20ms. https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-tries-again-to-reduce-star...

I still don't see the advantage for most people to choose a broadband provider that costs more for less bandwidth and higher latency. Seems like most people would only choose Starlink if they are in an area underserved by fixed broadband.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#542

Post by nautilius »

mrguyorama wrote: post #500
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? One of the unique selling points of their proposed aircraft is that it won't be so loud: > Boom says Overture will be a lot quieter than Concorde and the supersonic military aircraft that were flying at the time the FAA ban https://www.freethink.com/energy/boom-supersonic-flight

That's a claim without evidence. A sonic boom is a direct outcome of moving through the air faster than the air can move through itself. How have they demonstrated that they know how to cause quieter sonic booms?

A sonic boom is not necessary when moving faster than sound, the Busemann biplane resolves that completely.

There's been considerable work on sonic boom mitigation for many decades. Boom's long nose, flat underside, top engine, small wingspan delta wings are all designs expected to mitigate a sonic boom. Let's see if it works in practice.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#543

Post by RIMR »

cryptonector wrote: post #287
RIMR wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not something they probably want to draw attention to (despite the name), because it is a barrier to allowing these kinds of flights over land.

No, it's the whole point of Boom. They won't be able to keep the sonic boom a secret. They whole company's future hangs on making that sonic boom minor enough that supersonic flights will be allowed with few restrictions. Therefore asking what the boom was is perfectly fair. Now, Boom might say (have they? I'm not following them) that the XB-1 is a demonstrator that they can do supersonic flight, and that the sonic b…

I'm not criticizing anyone for asking how loud the boom was. I'm telling you why they didn't provide that answer unprompted.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#544

Post by tomaytotomato »

jandrese wrote: post #114
tomaytotomato wrote: post #43

Can't wait to live the good life of the 80/90s again with that our parents enjoyed with 5 hours flights to New York. More technology advances please so we can break through this zeitgeist of human pessimism and introspection. Onwards and upwards!

My parents certainly never did that. Very few parents did, the tickets were way out of the price range of the typical passenger. It's like pining for the days when people traveled in the opulant lounges of ocean going steamer ships, forgetting that the bulk of the people were crammed into tiny cabins with few amenities for the long journey.

Nor did my parents, but I guess I should have clarified better. They at least had the option to be able to do this. It was taken away when Concorde was grounded, but now we have an opportunity for supersonic flight for people, of course with a price tag.

That's a good thing in my books.

Re: Boom XB-1 First Supersonic Flight [video]

#545

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

mrguyorama wrote: post #500
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are people forgetting about how incredibly loud is a sonic boom? One of the unique selling points of their proposed aircraft is that it won't be so loud: > Boom says Overture will be a lot quieter than Concorde and the supersonic military aircraft that were flying at the time the FAA ban https://www.freethink.com/energy/boom-supersonic-flight

That's a claim without evidence. A sonic boom is a direct outcome of moving through the air faster than the air can move through itself. How have they demonstrated that they know how to cause quieter sonic booms?

Revisiting this, does this count as evidence? I see it as at least 1 data point

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42999735

https://boomsupersonic.com/boomless-cruise

Post reply on HN